The provisions of Bill 212…

The provisions of Bill 212 expose a troubling misjudgment of Ontario’s transportation and housing realities. Presented as a solution to traffic congestion, Bill 212 instead risks derailing critical local infrastructure projects through new layers of red tape, while undermining the authority of municipalities to address the unique needs of their communities.

The Greater Toronto Area’s gridlock crisis is driven by three deeply rooted issues—none of which have anything to do with bike lanes:

Chronic Underinvestment in Public Transit: After decades of neglect, Ontario’s public transit networks are overburdened and inefficient, forcing millions of Ontarians into cars as their only reliable option. True congestion relief requires significant investment in public transit that meets 21st-century demands, empowering commuters with real alternatives to driving. Without tackling this transit deficit, any attempt to reduce gridlock is like treating symptoms without addressing the disease.

Outdated and Inefficient Land Use: Decades of restrictive zoning, urban sprawl, and single-use developments have driven housing costs sky-high and pushed families to the urban periphery, increasing commute times and straining road networks. This land-use inefficiency is a fundamental driver of gridlock. Addressing it will take bold zoning reforms that enable more compact, mixed-use communities, reducing the need for personal vehicles in favor of accessible, community-based transportation. Properly planned bike lanes are a key part of this urban transformation, supporting denser, more vibrant neighborhoods.

Bottlenecks in the Road Network: Certain high-traffic intersections and interchanges in Ontario simply cannot accommodate the sheer volume of vehicles, creating bottlenecks that ripple outwards. Strategic improvements to these pressure points, along with intelligent traffic management technologies, would deliver real congestion relief. In contrast, the focus on bike lanes in Bill 212 completely sidesteps the root issue of these chokepoints, neglecting to improve the network's core efficiency.

Local governments already work diligently to build transportation systems that meet the needs of all residents, not just drivers. When designing bike lanes, municipalities rigorously assess traffic and safety impacts. Numerous studies show that bike lanes ease traffic, boost local economies, and increase road safety for everyone. These decisions are led by expert planners and transportation engineers who understand the needs of their communities down to the block. To substitute these local experts with top-down mandates from the Province dismisses this expertise and sidelines those most equipped to make informed decisions.

If the Province genuinely wants to alleviate traffic issues, the answer lies not in blanket legislation but in a cooperative approach that recognizes and respects local expertise. Partnering with municipal governments would foster pragmatic, customized solutions, providing a foundation for effective long-term congestion management. Encouraging flexible work policies to reduce peak traffic, bolstering regional mass transit networks, and implementing comprehensive zoning reforms to support urban infill would tackle the heart of Ontario’s congestion problem.

The Province should recognize that its broad and heavy-handed measures risk making things worse, not better. I implore the Province to reconsider the regressive measures in Bill 212. The municipalities of Ontario are ready and willing to tackle these challenges collaboratively and constructively—if only the Province will, as the saying goes, "stay in their lane" and allow our cities to do what they do best: shape solutions that work for everyone.